Official Barry Bonds Thread

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

My main argument with this is that Bonds also hit more home runs than he did strike out. So, if you gave him more at bats, he would just hit more home runs at the same time. Let's say that proportions were kept the same (yet you believe his strikeouts would increase, and I actually think that his home runs would increase, and here's why).

If we say that he is actually pitched to more, then we're assuming that he's actually getting fastballs on 2 - 0 counts, correct? You know... that Bonds is on the same playing field as everyone else. Let's even give him a fair ballpark to try and hit home runs in, just so that everything can be adjusted and worked out the same. Let's give him a few more chances to hit guys out of the stretch, as that is normally easier for hitters because pitchers don't get the same push off of the mound (thus less effort).


Bonds still puts up a better average (even with runners in scoring position), HR/AB, and even HR/K... even with all of his disadvantages with the strategies that are put against Bonds and the ballpark that he plays in. Like a post that I had on the second page... give Pujols these circumstances, and we will see who the true baseball king is. I'll give you a hint... if you take the "s" off of the end of the person's name, it doesn't make you laugh in an immature manner when you hear it.

What does any of this have to do with who the best player is now?

[BGarrett7]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

I've read the majority of the posts in this topic and most of it baffles me. First of all, I don't understand how this new book is any different from Jose Canseco's one or any of the past steroid allegations.

The fact that it is based around hard evidence, grand jury testimony, and interviews with people knowledgable on the subject at hand. Canseco's book, for one, was the recounting of one man's past, in his words, solely from his own recollection. If you don't see a difference in that, I don't know what to tell you.

Bonds was a surefire hall of famer AND a five tool player (his arm was never a cannon and Bonds didn't think so either, but it got the job done in the past) before he went on a power surge.

Hall of famer, yes. But you just contradicted yourself on the five-tool player title. If his arm was only good enough to "get the job done" then it was not above-average, nor good enough for him to be dubbed a "five-tool player."

As a Giants fan, I will continue to root and cheer on Bonds just like any and EVERY fan would do with their star.

I don't see how you can say EVERY fan would blindly support their favorite player. I loved Chipper Jones when he first hit the scene, definitely still do, but my view of him will never be the same after his ordeal with the Hooters waitress. I can only imagine how I would feel about him if he did something to discredit himself on the field itself.

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Just like you will find a 35 year that think they know everything, which I can't blame you, because being born in 71 makes us stuborn. lol

[joeysosa]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Not seeing it and neither are many others.

If they are ANTI-Bonds, why did they give him his own reality show? They're in this to make money and they're going to milk that show for as much as they can. They love Barry. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Flip on Sportscenter.

Now you will know why they are ANTI-Bonds. The whole media is ANTI-Bonds.

Watch PTI, you will see why they're Anti-Bonds. Watch Around the Horn, you will see why they are Anti-Bonds. He's got his own reality show because it will bring in ratings, not because they like him.

[Misfit]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

My main argument with this is that Bonds also hit more home runs than he did strike out. So, if you gave him more at bats, he would just hit more home runs at the same time. Let's say that proportions were kept the same (yet you believe his strikeouts would increase, and I actually think that his home runs would increase, and here's why).

If we say that he is actually pitched to more, then we're assuming that he's actually getting fastballs on 2 - 0 counts, correct? You know... that Bonds is on the same playing field as everyone else. Let's even give him a fair ballpark to try and hit home runs in, just so that everything can be adjusted and worked out the same. Let's give him a few more chances to hit guys out of the stretch, as that is normally easier for hitters because pitchers don't get the same push off of the mound (thus less effort).


Bonds still puts up a better average (even with runners in scoring position), HR/AB, and even HR/K... even with all of his disadvantages with the strategies that are put against Bonds and the ballpark that he plays in. Like a post that I had on the second page... give Pujols these circumstances, and we will see who the true baseball king is. I'll give you a hint... if you take the "s" off of the end of the person's name, it doesn't make you laugh in an immature manner when you hear it.

The 2003 Bonds would certainly hit more home runs if given the same pitches as Pujols, but he would also strike out more. 612 PA's, 232 walks, and he struck out 41 times. Pujols had 692 PA's, far fewer walks (don't feel like looking it up, but I'd guess he had close to 80), and only struck out 52 times. Bonds would hit more homeruns because he tries to, he swings for the fences at every strike he sees. I'll say him and Sheffield are amazing in that they can swing like that and make contact most of the time, but is it a coincidence both are known cheaters (I don't know)? Take the steroids out of Bonds and he isn't hitting all of those pitches out the ballpark. Take the steroids out and in 2003 Pujols probably wins a much deserved MVP. If such an assumption seems unfair, it isn't, because Bonds has raised these questions himself by not putting himself on a level playing field with a player like Albert Pujols.

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Just like you will find a 35 year that think they know everything, which I can't blame you, because being born in 71 makes us stuborn. lol

You're the one telling me to ask scouts (which I actually had done), and saying things like you've seen him live more than I ever will, and I know everything.

Ok.

[Blzer]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

What does any of this have to do with who the best player is now?

It had to do with considering Pujols and/or Bonds either power hitters or contact hitters who just happen to hit the long ball 50 times a year. Nothing about who was better.

The guy just said that Bonds would have ended up racking so many strikeouts with more official at bats, and I backed it up by saying two things: 1) That year, he already had more home runs than strikeouts... so to say that he's striking out without hitting home runs unlike Pujols or something is basically incorrect; and 2) He basically was saying that if Bonds was pitched to more, he would strike out more.

Well, most of his strikeouts are already borderline calls, and he gets either jipped or respected by whatever umpire he has. If he's ahead in the count, he'll get correct calls. If he's behind, the pitcher will be rewarded. Bonds does not not make contact much. He is a rarebreed (yes, like Pujols) that can hit the long ball without striking out much. But, Bonds is the only player that I can think of (aside from maybe Joe D.) that hit 40+ home runs while striking out less than the amount of home runs that he hit.

[Scottdau]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

The fact that it is based around hard evidence, grand jury testimony, and interviews with people knowledgable on the subject at hand. Canseco's book, for one, was the recounting of one man's past, in his words, solely from his own recollection. If you don't see a difference in that, I don't know what to tell you.

Hall of famer, yes. But you just contradicted yourself on the five-tool player title. If his arm was only good enough to "get the job done" then it was not above-average, nor good enough for him to be dubbed a "five-tool player."

I don't see how you can say EVERY fan would blindly support their favorite player. I loved Chipper Jones when he first hit the scene, definitely still do, but my view of him will never be the same after his ordeal with the Hooters waitress. I can only imagine how I would feel about him if he did something to discredit himself on the field itself.

Bonds was a five tool player in his prime. Throwing is more than just strong arm, there is release and accuracy involved. And those things made his arm a good one!

[BGarrett7]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Well, most of his strikeouts are already borderline calls, and he gets either jipped or respected by whatever umpire he has. If he's ahead in the count, he'll get correct calls. If he's behind, the pitcher will be rewarded.

Amazing.

Absolutely amazing.

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Well, most of his strikeouts are already borderline calls, and he gets either jipped or respected by whatever umpire he has.

How can you say stuff like this with a straight face?

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Bonds was a five tool player in his prime. Throwing is more than just strong arm, there is release and accuracy involved. And those things made his arm a good one!

His arm was never considered to be a plus arm.

[BGarrett7]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Bonds was a five tool player in his prime. Throwing is more than just strong arm, there is release and accuracy involved. And those things made his arm a good one!

Yes, and even with release and accuracy involved, he was still widely regarded as having one of the worst arms in the game, even for a LF.

[Blzer]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

The 2003 Bonds would certainly hit more home runs if given the same pitches as Pujols, but he would also strike out more. 612 PA's, 232 walks, and he struck out 41 times. Pujols had 692 PA's, far fewer walks (don't feel like looking it up, but I'd guess he had close to 80), and only struck out 52 times. Bonds would hit more homeruns because he tries to, he swings for the fences at every strike he sees. I'll say him and Sheffield are amazing in that they can swing like that and make contact most of the time, but is it a coincidence both are known cheaters (I don't know)? Take the steroids out of Bonds and he isn't hitting all of those pitches out the ballpark. Take the steroids out and in 2003 Pujols probably wins a much deserved MVP. If such an assumption seems unfair, it isn't, because Bonds has raised these questions himself by not putting himself on a level playing field with a player like Albert Pujols.

Most of what you're saying makes sense, and I can't say that I disagree with too much of it. But Bonds had the quickest swing and the best eye in the game (to watch the ball come in for such a long time) way before 1998. I mean, both of them have incredible bat speed, and this was something else that I didn't like about Pujols... his home runs seem to come from just a lot of arm strength, and anybody that watched that weight forward/one-handed home run in Colorado that he hit last year will know what I mean.

Bonds has a pure swing (weight back, compact swing, etc... I can actually compare my swing to Bonds' if you give me the chance), and I feel that, in some odd way, that he deserves the home runs that he hits more if that makes sense.


Maybe it doesn't... again, I'm talking with improv and it's all out of my ***. But, if you understand, then it would make sense and you would agree.

[bkrich83]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

Yes, and even with release and accuracy involved, he was still widely regarded as having one of the worst arms in the game, even for a LF.

Exactly. How many 5 tool players have ever been regular LF's to begin with. There's a reason a player with that kind of range was playing LF.

[Blzer]

Re: ESPN and Bonds

His arm was never considered to be a plus arm.

Maybe by you. Maybe by BGarrett. Maybe by 100,000,000 other people. But, if and when one baseball analyst says that he has a plus arm, it can be disagreed upon... but his belief in what's important in an arm cannot be rejected in the sense that it's incorrect. Even if I said the same thing, it's the same case.